> On 8/24/06, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
>> I would disagree with Yoshie only insofar as she seems to regard
>> "political
>> illiberalism" to be universally characteristic of the masses. Unless I am
>> misunderstanding, this seems to be echoing Wojtek from his left. While it
>> may well be true of Middle East Islamist populism, it doesn'tat all seem
>> to
>> be the case with respect to the Latin American populist movements, which
>> are
>> essentially social-democratic in character.
>
> The Bolivarian Revolution is an illiberal democracy, not being neutral
> on the question of good life (cf.
> <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20060821/044468.html>),
> so will Bolivia be, if it becomes like Venezuela. The rest of Latin
> America will move in that direction if masses have their way.
==================================
I've reread your comments on the link you posted above and think you may be
interpreting liberalism too narrowly as "negative freedom" from interference
by the the democratic majority and its levelling impulses. While
laissez-faire was preached by the classical liberals admired by contemporary
conservatives, this hasn't been the case for people who describe themselves
as liberals since the turn of the 20th century when liberal thinkers and
politicians - under pressure from the rising socialist and labour movement -
made a preemptive turn in theory and practice towards the welfare state.
I think what is happening in Latin America today resembles the earlier struggles for a New Deal in the US and elsewhere, where mass movements from below sought structural change and social reforms through the electoral system. Whether the process becomes revolutionary and is forced outside the framework of bourgeois democracy will mostly depend on the response of US imperialism and the Latin American ruling class. They can either adapt to these forces, as the FDR Democrats did for their own economic as well as social reasons in the 30s, or they can move to crush them as they did in Chile in 1973. I think the latter is less likely today, but in any case I would no more describe these movements as "illiberal" than I would have done in the case of their social democratic predecessors in Europe and the English-speaking countries 70 years ago.
On the other hand, I do think the Islamist movements fighting for national independence and social change in the Middle East are profoundly "illiberal" in their reaction to the democratic rights and movements historically championed by the left.